liblo @0.27: build fails: error: expected value in expression

[ryandesign (Ryan Carsten Schmidt)]

That was with +universal. Without it, failure is earlier, in the configure phase:

checking how to print long long int... configure: error: printf doesn't support long long int

The config.log shows an unnecessary flag being used, about which clang prints a warning, and the -Werror flag being used, which turns the warning into a fatal error:

configure:11936: ccache /usr/bin/clang -c -pipe -Os -arch x86_64 -Werror -Wall -I/opt/local/include conftest.c >&5
clang: error: argument unused during compilation: '-I /opt/local/include'

[ryandesign (Ryan Carsten Schmidt)]

Should liblo even have been updated to 0.27? According to the homepage 0.27 is a testing release; 0.26 is still the latest stable.

[ryandesign (Ryan Carsten Schmidt)]

Maybe their homepage is out of date. ​liblo 0.27 was announced as stable on the mailing list on 2013-05-22.

[ryandesign (Ryan Carsten Schmidt)]

Replying to ryandesign@…:

checking how to print long long int... configure: error: printf doesn't support long long int

Worked around this in r109546. Filed upstream bug report: ​https://sourceforge.net/p/liblo/bugs/34/

Should liblo even have been updated to 0.27? According to the homepage 0.27 is a testing release; 0.26 is still the latest stable.

Maybe their homepage is out of date. ​liblo 0.27 was announced as stable on the mailing list on 2013-05-22.

Filed an upstream bug report about this: ​https://sourceforge.net/p/liblo/bugs/33/

error: expected value in expression

Filed an upstream bug report about this: ​https://sourceforge.net/p/liblo/bugs/35/

[ryandesign (Ryan Carsten Schmidt)]

Replying to ryandesign@…:

Should liblo even have been updated to 0.27? According to the homepage 0.27 is a testing release; 0.26 is still the latest stable.

Maybe their homepage is out of date. ​liblo 0.27 was announced as stable on the mailing list on 2013-05-22.

Filed an upstream bug report about this: ​https://sourceforge.net/p/liblo/bugs/33/

The developer replied:

After release, several bugs were reported that had not been reported previous to release. At least one of these was serious enough that I can't recommend 0.27 as stable. Several bugs only appeared on the x86_64 architecture. Many of these have now been fixed in master but are awaiting further testing.

Reverted to 0.26 in r109548.

[bennigraf@…]

The Ticket #46538 tries to fix this by jumping to v0.28 which was released last year...